Friday, June 17, 2011

Highly unlikely to change*

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

I am the latest in a string of U.S. defense secretaries who have urged allies privately and publicly, often with exasperation, to meet agreed-upon NATO benchmarks for defense spending. However, fiscal, political and demographic realities make this unlikely to happen anytime soon, as even military stalwarts like the U.K have been forced to ratchet back with major cuts to force structure. Today, just five of 28 allies – the U.S., U.K., France, Greece, along with Albania – exceed the agreed 2% of GDP spending on defense.

Regrettably, but realistically, this situation is highly unlikely to change.

It's as though in 58 years we've gone from T.S. Eliot to Ewan McTeagle. And as I've said before, to get a true appreciation for just how far we've come, try to imagine a president of either party saying anything remotely resembling that first quote today.

---

* (For the better, that is; I no longer make the mistake of underestimating our potential in the opposite direction.)

Outgoing U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told a gathering in Brussels that NATO risks becoming "irrelevant" unless member states increase military spending and boost involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Libya. Gates criticized European members of NATO for cutting back on their military budgets, which he called "chronically starved for adequate funding."

This is urgent people... we have chronically starved military budgets! Call U2... fire up the informercials... anyone want to sponsor the Belgian air force?

Reminds me of the Goldman CEO saying they're doing God's work, or the CEOs in an Ayn Rand novel devoting their lives to coming up with more energy efficient motors.

Actually that's what I was getting at--the difference isn't just in form but in content, which is the polar opposite ("rockets are theft from those who hunger" vs "screw the hungry; buy another rocket").

The Eisenhauer appeal is universal. Translate that into any language and it is understood and compelling.

Gate's diabolical call has literally no pull on anyone but the vilest or most deluded among us. Further, anyone below wealthy isn't even remotely tempted by his plea, or similar ones.

The upside, then, is that our aristocracy has a harder time than ever rallying the populace behind war. Our institutional memory is, for the first time, too damn good. Now, they don't need us to start a war, but the fact of the matter is not even another attack on the U.S. itself would lead the citizens to back a new war without tremendously successful propaganda -- and our recent administrations are not capable of that sophistication. They rely instead on a preexisting mythos and a shit-ton of fear and economic desperation.

It's not the best news in the world, but at least a populist war machine isn't in the cards. This makes it easier for populist agitators to get someplace.

If any of you DON'T think this is good news, let me know, because all this positivity is making me feel dirty and I need to shower so I'd like to be wrong.